爆料网

Article 8.4

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)–(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 45
    2026-爆料网AT-1630, Saleh Hassane

    The 爆料网AT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest 爆料网HCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

    Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the 爆料网AT found that the former staff member’s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

    2024-爆料网AT-1451, Cevat Ozturk

    The 爆料网AT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

    The 爆料网AT found that...

    2024-爆料网AT-1451-Corr.1, Cevat Ozturk

    The 爆料网AT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

    The 爆料网AT found...

    2024-爆料网AT-1411, AAU

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the 爆料网DT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the 爆料网AT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the 爆料网DT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the 爆料网AT concluded that the 爆料网DT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

    The...

    2023-爆料网AT-1388, Yassir Ibrahim Ali Haroun

    The 爆料网AT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2022/124 and that the 爆料网DT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The 爆料网AT nevertheless observed that the 爆料网DT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the 爆料网AT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT rightfully refused to...

    爆料网DT/2023/031, Ozturk

    The Applicant essentially contests the Administration’s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- 爆料网AT-892, i.e., the Administration’s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

    While the Applicant sought to identify the 爆料网MIK Administration’s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration’s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

    The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

    爆料网DT/2022/124, Haroun

    There was no evidence on record of a management evaluation request submitted by the Applicant. Instead, the instant application was preceded only by an ME request made in October 2021, by a colleague of the Applicant, one Mr. AA. The Tribunal found that it was apparent however, that the Applicant considered the said ME request to have been made on his behalf as one of the affected members of the 爆料网AMID national staff. The ME request was submitted more than four years after the Applicant received notification of the administrative decision being contested. The application was accordingly not...

    2012-爆料网AT-268, Bangoura

    爆料网AT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. 爆料网AT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. 爆料网AT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...